Writing A Scientific Paper For Publication
Furthermore, condensing writing to a set of quantifiable components does not encapsulate everything that is good or bad about writing, a challenge that is difficult, if not impossible, to overcome entirely.
Yet our analysis is a first step toward understanding the benefit of writing with the reader in mind and gives some initial clues regarding what good writing in science can achieve.
This observation suggests that less-cited articles not only contain positive components of writing but also tend to contain a greater proportion of negative components, such as noun chunks and acronyms.
Peer-reviewed articles are the currency of science. Despite this fundamental role, peer-reviewed articles tend to be written in a dry, dense, and impersonal style that can be challenging to read and understand (1–4).But the higher the impact factor, the greater benefit you will receive.Bars show the number of citations each article has accumulated, on average, over a 6-year period.This diversity suggests that there is no single formula for writing better. Our model suggests that increases in clarity, narrative structure, and creativity could translate to a boost in citations (Fig. Interestingly, an increase in citations was related to journal influence so that researchers publishing in broader journals had a greater increase in citations (impact factor 12, 74%) compared with researchers publishing in local or specific journals (impact factor 3, 26%).This suggests that the traditional style of scientific writing appears to restrain citations, but clarity, creativity, and narrative could remove this restraint and maximize citations.